Judges are humiliated and dehumanized whenever they must enforce the nation’s immigration laws, according to a senior judge on the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The judge’s cry of outrage came when he could not block the orderly repatriation of an illegal immigrant who has two drunk driving convictions, plus a U.S. wife and three children.

snip

The judge, who was appointed — not elected — in 1980 and is married to a former top leader in the ACLU, also lamented the authority of ordinary DHS agents to enforce the law despite protests from well-paid, high-status “civil rights” lawyers:

snip

Reinhardt’s intemperate language, said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge, suggests that the court’s decisions are political biased. “There is no ‘cold neutrality’ in the Ninth Circuit’s ruling,” Arthur wrote about the court’s preliminary ruling in the Hawaii case. “It is personal, visceral, and vindictive.”

Judicial Watch received the documents in response to a Vermont Public Records Law request to the office of Mayor Christopher Louras.

Merdzanovic later told the Boston Globe that the hidden talks were “the right thing to do — to move slowly, keep it to a small circle of people, and then expand.”

On April 10, 2016, she wrote to the director of the State Refugee Office about her coordination with the mayor to keep the resettlement program secret:

He did share with me that the Governor’s office called him after getting a frantic call from DOL [Vermont Department of Labor] inquiring about the plan to resettle ‘100 Syrians in the next month’ in Rutland. Again, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of not sharing the information even if it is confidentially. Please respect our process, you will have plenty of opportunity to share and take action once we have met with the stakeholders. At that point we can and will share it widely. It will not serve any one of us well if the community in Rutland learned about it through the grapevine and not directly from us. The above example shows that what people hear and how they interpret it is two different things.

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 22, 2016

Refugee fraud is “easy to commit” and much tougher to detect, Homeland Security officials acknowledged in an internal memo made public by members of Congress Thursday that challenges the department’s own assurances as it seeks to increase the number of refugees from dangerous countries.

— In an April 2011 televised interview with the late Andrew Breitbart, Fox News host Sean Hannity reminded his guest that he had said that in 2008, “the media died.”

During the interview, Breitbart responded that he planned to “save the world” with a “citizen journalism revolution” through his several websites intended to counter what he claimed was “liberal” bias in the mainstream media. As examples, he cited James O’Keefe’s work with Project Veritas, which exposed ACORN employees in 2008 and later, campaign workers in 2014 appearing to advocate, or at least not discourage, voter fraud.

See comments by the director of Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Again a legal question: Who has standing to challenge the current interpretation that gives citizenship to the US-born children of illegal aliens?

It appears to me that any citizen who votes in an election for someone who willingly awards birthright citizenship under the flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment also votes to give away the power of the vote and the sovereignty of our nation.

Birthright Citizenship Is Not Actually in the Constitution

John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. He is also the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

UPDATED AUGUST 24, 2015, 3:32 AM NY TIMES

The question of whether birthright citizenship should be abolished is based on the faulty premise that our Constitution actually mandates it. In fact, the text of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

That text has two requirements for citizenship — that an individual is born on U.S. soil; and that an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The drafters of the clause modeled it off of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which affordedcitizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, “domiciled”) residents was a citizen.

The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfullywere automatically citizens.

The misunderstood policy of birthright citizenship provides a powerful magnet for people to violate our immigration laws and undermines the plenary power over naturalization that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil.